1. law, govt and politics
2. government
3. legislative

VML Day at the Capitol
Library of Virginia / 800 E. Broad St. / Richmond, VA 23219
Governor to kick-off program Wednesday afternoon
Welcome to Richmond for the 2015 VML Day at the Capitol legislative program and
reception. The VML Executive Committee and legislative staff are delighted that you’ve
made this important commitment to the residents of the communities where you serve.
Thank-you. Here are a few details to remember:
 Following welcoming remarks at 3 p.m., Gov. Terry McAuliffe will deliver the
keynote address in the library’s Lecture Hall. The afternoon program, which will
include remarks by Secretary of Transportation Aubrey Layne and a briefing by
VML legislative staff members, will conclude at 5:30.
 Evening reception will be held in the library’s foyer from 5:30 until 7 p.m.
 Links to parking lot maps: http://bit.ly/1uTbDvu and http://bit.ly/1z2NBg3
Easy lobbying: Issues to address with your legislators
Here are some key issues to address with legislators. Remember, something easy you
can always do is to jot a note on a business card and leave that at your legislator’s office.
Support these VML budget amendments:
 Eliminate “local aid to the Commonwealth” in FY16: Item 471.30 #1h (James),
Item 471.30 #1s (Alexander), Item 471.30 #2s (Lucas), Item 471.30 #3s
(Stanley), Item 471.30 #4s (Colgan)
 Revise the language on collection of fines and fees through implementation of the
Inspector General’s report: Item 37 #1h (James), Item 3-6.05 #1h (James),
Item 3-6.05 #1s (Lucas), Item 3-6.05 #2s (Stanley), Item 3-6.05 #3s (Carrico)
 Ensure that cities and counties do not have sole responsibility for future salary
increases for deputy sheriffs: Item 66 #5h (Tyler), Item 66 #2s (Garrett)
Support redistricting reform: Yes to SJR 284 (Vogel and Lucas), SB 840 (Watkins)
Oppose BPOL changes that will reduce revenues: HB 1352 (Ramadan)
Oppose changes to assessment appeals process: HB 1153 (Pogge) HB 1416 (Taylor)
Oppose exemptions to stormwater utility fees: HB 1293 (Morris)
1
Overview: State budget has many local implications
The close of FY14 shocked state leaders when revenues collapsed by $438
million in the last two months. A subsequent reforecast of state revenues showed a
revenue shortfall of almost $2 billion over fiscal years 2015 and 2016.
Working closely with the General Assembly, Gov. Terry McAuliffe worked out a
strategy that addressed most of the $2.4 billion revenue hit by tapping cash reserves like
the Rainy Day Fund and by imposing spending cuts on state agencies, state colleges and
universities, and local governments. These actions, however, left the governor with an
$882 million challenge. McAuliffe’s December budget amendments (HB 1400 and SB
800) tackled the unfunded portion as well as the governor’s $176 million in proposed
new spending, including $11.3 million in additional payments for local and regional jail
per diems.
Embedded in the budget are a series of tax and fee increases. The fees would
increase state parks cabin rentals, camping rentals and parking ($870,000 yearly);
restaurant inspections ($3.8 million yearly); child protective services registrations
($225,000 yearly); and weights and measures inspections at gas stations and food stores
($500,000 yearly).
The proposed changes in state tax policies have a far greater financial impact,
calling for $114.3 million in additional revenue collections. These are:
 Coalfield Enhancement Tax Credit – limiting the amount that may be claimed to
$500,000 per return;
 Virginia Coal Employment and Production Incentive Tax Credit – limiting the
benefit to $2 per ton and the amount that can be redeemed to $500,000;
 Long-term health care insurance – reducing the deduction from 100 percent to 50
percent of the annual premium;
 Land Preservation Tax Credit – limiting the amount that may be claimed to
$20,000 per taxpayer or $40,000 for joint returns;
 Sales tax holidays – combining all such holidays into a single three-day holiday
in August;
 Sale of land for open space use – repealing the subtraction;
 Accelerated sales tax – lowering the threshold to include more retailers; and
 Online travel companies – imposing the sales tax on online companies that book
lodging at the retail level rather than the wholesale level. This would also
increase local transient occupancy taxes.
The first of these tax bills (online travel companies) was shot down by a House
Finance subcommittee last Wednesday. The Senate version of the bill will be heard by
the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday. If these bills are eventually defeated, K12 funding could be tapped to make up for the lost cash. That would be a blow to local
school divisions and localities already preparing their budgets for FY 2016.
McAuliffe’s budget contains items local governments can support and others that
give pause.
Among the governor’s amendments to support:
 Increase funding for the Governor’s Development Opportunity Fund ($20.7
million for the biennium)
2











Establish Virginia Tourism Growth Incentive Fund ($500,000 in FY16)
Rapid re-housing assistance for the homeless ($1 million in FY16)
Reduce teacher retirement liability ($150 million in FY16) and as a result,
reduce employer teacher retirement contribution rate from the current
14.50 percent to 14.15 percent in FY16
Revive use of Literary Fund for school construction ($75 million in FY16
with $50 million reserved for loans and $25 million for interest rate
subsidies)
Fund legislation to extend foster care and adoption payment to age 21 ($5.7
million in FY16)
Delay discharge of patients at state intellectual disability training centers
($6.4 million in FY16)
Fund additional local eligibility workers for health and human resources
programs ($1.9 million in FY16)
Support Health Virginia to extend services to the uninsured who have
serious mental illness, establish a children’s healthcare outreach program,
provide dental coverage to pregnant women, and improve access to health
care for veterans (Funded within existing state and federal resources)
Support jail per diems in FY15 ($11.3 million)
Establish new minimum salaries for sheriff deputies at grades 7 and 8 ($1.6
million)
Support positions at local level to coordinate housing of homeless veterans
($180,000 in FY16)
Among the governor’s amendments that give pause:
 No change in “local aid to the commonwealth” in FY15; slight reduction in
FY16
 No policy reductions in public education
 No increase to 599 law enforcement program
 Establish an unfunded mandate for cities and counties to maintain the new
minimum salary levels for deputy sheriffs without future state funding
Talking points:
 The budget does not make up for past state spending cuts in public
education, public safety or health and human resources.
 If the governor’s tax and fee proposals are defeated, it is likely that there
will be additional spending cuts made in public education, “599” local
law enforcement or in “local aid to the commonwealth.”
 If House bills affecting BPOL (HB 1352) or real estate assessments (HB
1416 and HB 1576) and the budget bill does not take these changes into
consideration, localities will be pushed towards raising local property
taxes and fees.
Staff contact: Neal Menkes, [email protected]
3
VML-backed budget amendments need your support
VML sought amendments to address particularly onerous state-generated
mandates. We need your help in promoting these amendments with your House and
Senate members, particularly those who serve on the budget committees (House
Appropriations and Senate Finance). There are many amendments introduced on any
number of topics, and in order for the committees to pay attention to any of them, they
need to hear from the people who support them.
Local aid to the Commonwealth
VML and local partners worked to get budget amendments introduced in the
House and Senate to remove the mandate included in the Governor’s introduced budget
to require local governments to hand back to the state funds used by localities to carry out
state and federal mandates and programs.
House: Item 471.30 #1h (James)
Senate: Item 471.30 #1s (Alexander)
Item 471.30 #2s (Lucas)
Item 471.30 #3s (Stanley)
Item 471.30 #4s (Colgan)
Deputy sheriff salary mandate
VML and local partners worked to get budget amendments introduced in the
House and Senate to keep the salary increase for certain levels of deputy sheriffs but to
eliminate the language in the Governor’s introduced budget to require localities to
supplement future increases.
House: Item 66#5h (Tyler)
Senate: Item 66 #2s (Garrett)
Fines and fees
VML and local partners worked to get budget amendments introduced in the
House and Senate to greatly reduce the state’s taking of local fines and fees. A set of two
amendments are needed to accomplish this goal, so you will see two amendments listed
per patron below.
House: Item 37 #1h and Item 3-6.05 #1h (James)
Senate: Item 37 #1s and Item 3-6.05 #1s (Lucas)
Item 37 #2s and Item 3-6.05#2s (Stanley)
Item 37 #3s and Item 3-6.05#3s (Carrico)
Staff contacts: Janet Areson, [email protected]; Neal Menkes,
[email protected].
BPOL bill bops local revenue collections
VML’s Legislative Program clearly states that specific “local revenue authority
and sources cannot be further restricted without first granting and providing alternative
revenue authority with reliable, sustainable revenue sources.” This includes, without
limitation, the BPOL and machinery & tools taxes.
4
HB 1352 comes before a House Finance Subcommittee on Wednesday. It would
allow contractors to deduct from their gross proceeds the amounts paid to subcontractors,
beginning in license year 2016. The potential revenue loss could be substantial,
according to the Virginia Department of Taxation.
The measure does not include an alternative revenue source to make up for the
losses. Nor was a budget amendment submitted by the patron, Del. David I. Ramadan, to
have the state reimburse localities for the drop in collections.
Talking points:
 BPOL accounts for some $700 million each year for Virginia’s cities, most of the
counties and many towns. BPOL combined with machinery and tools taxes is
comparable to the state’s corporate income tax which raises some $900.0 million
each year.
 Without BPOL or an alternative, sustainable revenue source, localities would
have to increase its dependence on real estate and other property taxes. v
Staff contact: Neal Menkes, [email protected]
Governor’s bill will make more funds available for
transit, local projects
A comprehensive proposal by Gov. Terry McAuliffe to amend the process and
allocation formulas of state transportation dollars would make more money available for
local road and transit infrastructure. HB 1887 (Jones), presented in various committee
meetings in the first weeks of session, will be up for a vote Thursday morning in the
House Transportation Committee.
Details at a glance
The bill does not include new dollars for transportation. Instead, it replaces the
current allocation formula for construction projects (set to expire in 2020) with the
following:
 40 percent to rebuild deteriorated pavement and bridges within the state’s
interstate and primary system of highways. This includes those primary routes
owned and maintained by cities and towns;
 30 percent for projects (including rail and transit) that reduce congestion along
statewide corridors and within regional networks; and
 30 percent in the form of grants for construction district to fund projects to
address needs identified in the Statewide Transportation Plan. These grants would
be competitive.
The importance of this change is that the current formula directing the
Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) to prioritize the funding of state projects
leaves nothing to construct local priorities. All proposed projects will be scored and
ranked by a new prioritization process currently under development and scheduled to be
adopted by the CTB in June. The ranking of projects will assist the CTB in making final
decisions on allocation of funds within the state’s six-year funding plan.
5
In its current form the bill allocates approximately $40 million more a year to
transit capital needs. The money to pay for this allocation will primarily come from a
variety of funding streams.
As the bill progresses, VML expects members of the House and Senate to work
with the administration on changes.
Staff contact: Joe Lerch, [email protected]
Bill exempts churches from stormwater utility fees
A subcommittee of the House Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources
Committee will meet Thursday afternoon to consider exempting churches from paying
local stormwater utility fees. HB 1293 (Morris) also extends this exemption to
religiously-affiliated schools and universities.
Local governments are authorized to establish a stormwater utility whereby
charges are determined by the amount of impervious surfaces such as pavement and
rooftops. Such an exemption would likely result in other classes of non-profit property
owners (including federal and state government) seeking relief, thereby further
diminishing revenues.
Tell senators and delegates you oppose HB 1293.
Talking points:
 Virginia’s localities are required under federal and state law to meet new
requirements for reducing stormwater pollution.
 Recent cost estimates for Virginia to comply exceed $10 billion, with the majority
of the costs falling on local governments.
 Stormwater utility fees provide a limited source of revenue for locals to tap into to
finance costly projects to reduce pollution.
 Any state-mandated reductions to this revenue source will place additional
financial burdens on localities.
Staff contact: Joe Lerch, [email protected].
State likely to regulate ride-sharing services; leave
taxi regulation to localities
Legislation to give the state authority to regulate the emerging industry that uses
smart phone apps such as Uber, Lyft and Sidecar to connect drivers and riders appears
likely to become law.
Making their way through both chambers are bills drafted by the Virginia
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to create a new licensing authority for these new
transportation network companies (TNCs). The legislation makes clear that local
governments are prohibited from regulating TNCs. The authority of localities to regulate
taxicab services will remain, a position expressly supported by VML in its Legislative
Program.
SB 1025 (Watkins) was unanimously approved last week in committee after
stakeholders representing TNCs, taxicab companies and insurance companies were
brought together by DMV to agree on an amended bill. HB 1662 (Rust) will be
6
considered in the Transportation Committee Thursday morning and is expected to be
amended to be identical to the senate measure.
The growth in TNCs has created controversy across the globe with traditional
taxicab drivers and companies who claim the unregulated TNCs have an unfair
competitive advantage in the marketplace. Additionally, concerns regarding insurance
liability have surfaced in the wake of accidents involving TNC drivers who use their
personal vehicles to give rides. In June, DMV issued cease and desist orders to TNCs
operating in Virginia, citing lack of legal authority to do so. But the popularity of such
services, combined with their growing financial and political clout, led DMV to reverse
course. It granted temporary operating authority to the companies and their drivers and
began drafting the legislation, with the input of stakeholders, to create a new licensing
authority specifically for TNCs.
VML’s Legislative Program “supports state regulation of ride-sharing companies
as needed to ensure proper safety, liability, cleanliness, insurance coverage, local
revenue, consideration of ADA access, and equitable service in communities.”
While the compromise bill in large part addresses many of these concerns, here
are details local governments need to be aware of:

The legislation specifically states that enforcement of the new law will be the
responsibility of not only DMV "but also by any other law-enforcement officer."
VML has repeatedly raised concerns regarding the potential impact this provision
will have on local law enforcement. Requests to clarify that DMV has primary
responsibility and that local police “may” enforce the law have been rejected by
the legislature. However, DMV Commissioner Rick Holcomb assured VML that
the department will assume primary responsibility and local police will not be
tasked with enforcement.

TNC drivers will not be allowed to refuse service "on the basis of points of
departure and destination, race, color, national origin, religious belief or
affiliation, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation, or gender identity."

TNC drivers will be required to accommodate companion service animals for
those with disabilities and by July 1, 2016 the TNC application must allow riders
to indicate whether they need a TNC vehicle that is wheelchair accessible. The
legislation also requires DMV to regularly consult with local governments to
determine if TNCs, through their competition with locally regulated taxis, have
resulted in a lack of availability for wheelchair accessible transportation services.
If evidence suggests a decrease in accessibility, then DMV will explore the
establishment of an additional fee on TNC companies, TNC drivers, and/or TNC
rides to assist localities in funding alternatives for providing rides for persons with
wheelchairs.

Requires the screening of TNC drivers to include driving history and criminal
background checks. Certain “barrier offenses” that turn up in records – including
those in other states and the U.S. - will bar individuals from obtaining an
operating license. These include commission of a violent crime and registration
7
as a sex offender. It is important to note that as originally drafted convictions of
similar crimes in a foreign country would also bar individuals from being drivers.
This prohibition was removed from the amended bill at the request of the TNCs.
VML objected to its removal, noting that current state law includes convictions in
a foreign country as a barrier to operating a tow truck.

Requires TNC drivers to be covered by a motor vehicle liability insurance policy
that specifically covers liabilities arising from a driver’s use of a vehicle to
provide TNC services; vehicles must be registered with DMV and display
markings that clearly identifies the TNC with which the vehicle is associated.

TNCs can only provide rides on a prearranged basis through the mobile
application platform. This means TNC drivers are not allowed to accept street
hails similar to taxis.

The growth of this industry creates the potential for loss in BPOL (Business,
Professional and Occupational License) taxes. This is because the TNC
companies will not be required to pay BPOL and their contract drivers’ annual
incomes will in most cases fall short of BPOL minimum payments. By contrast,
taxi companies operating in Virginia are subject to BPOL with annual gross
revenues that trigger payment to localities.
Staff contact: Joe Lerch, [email protected]
CSA bills swirling in House, Senate
Parental referrals to FAPT. HB 2083 (Peace) and SB 1041 (Hanger) would
require local Comprehensive Services Act teams to create new policy to allow a parent or
guardian to refer a child/family to the local Family Assessment and Policy Team (FAPT).
Currently, referrals to FAPT are made by one or more agencies represented on the FAPT
who work with the child and their family and know that their needs meet the
requirements under CSA law.
These bills have been amended to remove the word “direct” as in “direct access”
to FAPT, but it still requires taking referrals from parents/guardians for cases that may or
may not properly belong before FAPT; to provide research and case management for
each referral in order to determine whether they properly belong before FAPT; and to
overall handle a greater volume of work without any additional administrative assistance
from the state or lessening of any other requirements. There have been no increases in
state administrative allocations to local teams since the 1990s, despite repeated tries by
VML and VACo.
SB 1041 was reported from the Senate Rehabilitation and Social Services
Committee on Jan. 23 and referred to the Senate Finance Committee to determine its state
fiscal impact; HB 2083 is before the House Health, Welfare and Institutions Committee.
No budget amendments were submitted to address the fiscal impact of these bills.
Administrative Process Act and CSA. SB 1054 (Hanger) would require the
State Executive Council, the governing body over CSA, to abide by the state
Administrative Process Act. CSA uses its own hybrid system of policy development and
public notice which has had an uneven history of application over the years. While VML
8
did not request the bill, its policy supports putting CSA under APA, so we support the
legislation. The bill is before the Senate Rehabilitation and Social Services and should be
on the docket Jan. 30.
There are other minor bills affecting CSA, including SB 1151 (Wexton), which
codifies changes in the make-up of the State-Local Advisory Team (SLAT), which serves
as a policy arm for the State Executive Council. VML worked on the language in the bill
during its development last fall and has no opposition to it. SB 850 (Favola) changes the
name of CSA to “Children’s Services Act.” The monogram stays the same. VML does
not have a position on the bill.
Staff contact: Janet Areson, [email protected].
Child day care bills
This is the year for bills regarding the regulation and other safety concerns
regarding home-based, compensated child care services.
One bill, SB 1029 (Marsden), would require the commissioner of revenue/local
finance director who administers the BPOL tax to report to state social services on a
quarterly basis information about anyone who applies for a business license in order to
run a home-based child care business. VML has been working on possible amendments
to the bill with the patron and the administration. VML would prefer that such providers
register first with state social services and then provide proof of registration/licensure
when applying for a business license.
There are numerous bills addressing the number of children who can be cared for
in a home without the provider being required to be licensed by the state. Some would
start state licensure at one child, thereby eliminating the current family day home system
designation – SB818 (Favola); HB 1552 (Filler-Corn) and HB 2046 (Filler-Corn); some
would count the children of the provider towards the threshold for state licensure, which
is six children – SB 780 (Favola/Ebbin/Wexton; SB 1124 (Barker); HB 1929 (Anderson).
There are bills that would put in place new background check requirements or
fingerprinting requirements for those providing home-based child care. SB 831
(Edwards) adds new barrier crimes to background check but no fingerprint test; SB 911
(Wexton) requires annual name-based background check (not the current three years) and
adds individuals currently the subject of a child abuse/neglect complaint; SB 1055
(Hanger) prohibits sex offenders/individuals with founded complaints of abuse or neglect
from working/living/volunteering in home offering child care; SB 1168 (Hanger), HB
1552 (Filler-Corn) and HB 1931 (Anderson) all require fingerprint-based background
checks and call for a review of existing categories of license-exempt care, zoning, and
other issues.
Two bills would require unlicensed providers not voluntarily registered with the
state to notify the state of their operation, notify parents of their unlicensed status, and
submit to some basic health and safety requirements – SB 898 (Favola and Ebbin); (HB
1570) (Orrock)
Finally, there are bills that would require all home-based child care businesses
that receive a federal child care subsidy to be licensed, which is the case in some other
states. These bills include SB 1123 (Barker) and HB 2023 (BaCote).
VML does not have positions on any of the regulatory bills at this time; we are
working on the BPOL-related bill and carefully watching the bills that call for a review of
9
existing license-exempt care (which affects many local government-sponsored programs)
and zoning (which affects all members).
Staff contact: Janet Areson, [email protected].
First-day introduction bill awaits action
A House bill would require legislation with a local fiscal impact to be introduced
no later than the first day of the session. HB 1865 (Kilgore) implements a key element of
VML’s Legislative Program. The bill is based on recommendations first offered last year
by the Governor’s Task Force for Local Government Mandate Review and the Task
Force for Fiscal Impact Review. By providing local governments more time to assess the
fiscal impact of proposed legislation, it is hoped that the General Assembly will make
better decisions on measures affecting local spending and local revenues. The House
Rules Committee has not yet taken any action.
Talking points:
 Recommendation for the bill came about from both a gubernatorial commission
and a General Assembly initiative.
 Many proposals affecting local revenues and local spending are complex and
require time to solicit local input, compile and reconcile local responses, and
provide to the legislature before decisions are made.
 First-day introduction of bills affecting local finances and spending was standard
procedure until the General Assembly changed it. The reason for the change is
not known.
Staff contact: Neal Menkes, [email protected].
Bills on low performing schools advance
Following a court decision declaring the Opportunity Educational Institution
unconstitutional, the General Assembly is considering a variety of bills to address the
issue of low-performing schools.
School divisions with low performing schools would have increased flexibility
with regards to calendars under HB 1585 (Stolle), which passed the House on Jan. 24 and
likely will be heard in the Senate Education & Health Committee.
If more than 15 percent of the schools within a division have failed to meet full
accreditation, the bill would allow the superintendent and school board the flexibility to
operate year-round schools or open before Labor Day. Another section of the bill allows
the superintendent and school board similar authority for any school within a division
that is not fully accredited.
SB 821 (Miller) simply eliminates the Opportunity Educational Institution. That
bill is on the Senate floor.
The state would be required to offer training to principals and assistant principals
in schools that are denied accreditation or accredited without warning for two years under
HB 1872 (Bulova). Funding is included in the governor’s introduced budget
amendments. This bill is in House Education.
10
Other bills that would encourage or force school boards to take particular actions
or that would strengthen the role of the state Department of Education in overseeing lowperforming schools remain in committee or subcommittee in both the Senate and the
House, although the Education Reform Subcommittee in House Education may deal with
some of them at its Jan. 27 meeting.
HB 1299 (R. Bell) requires school divisions with schools that have been denied
accreditation to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the state Department of
Education that would let the board make any changes necessary to improve the
accreditation rankings. HB 1448 (McQuinn) sets up a Virginia Public School
Improvement Program. HB 1557 (Kory) would allow, but does not require, the state
board to provide guidance and recommendations on instructional matters. HB 1713
(LeMunyon) allows students in a failing school to transfer to any other school in the
division.
Two bills address the accreditation process itself by requiring the Board of
Education to recognize student progress. HB 1873 (Krupicka) and SB 1320 (Locke)
direct the Board of Education to establish additional accreditation ratings that recognize
the progress of schools that do not meet accreditation benchmarks but have significantly
improved their pass rates, are within specified ranges of benchmarks, or have
demonstrated significant growth for the majority of their students.
Staff contact: Mary Jo Fields, [email protected].
Fate of redistricting reform likely rests in House
Three measures that would start Virginia down the road of redistricting reform are
working their way through the Senate and will be before the House of Delegates.
The House has not acted on redistricting measures that were introduced in that
body, and redistricting reform is unlikely without a great push on delegates, especially
those serving on the House Privileges & Elections Committee.
OneVirginia2021, a redistricting advocacy group, calls SJR 284 (Vogel and
Lucas) the “gold standard” of redistricting reform. This constitutional amendment would
create an independent, non-partisan commission responsible for drawing legislative lines
according to specified criteria. These criteria include the recognition of existing political
boundaries (such as city, county and town boundaries, precincts, etc.), population, race
and ethnicity, contiguity and compactness. Further, the amendment severely restricts the
use of political data or election results. The measure passed the Senate on Monday
afternoon.
Another measure – SB 840 (Watkins) – would codify the use of those criteria by
amending existing state law regarding redistricting. In addition, SB 840 also would add
“community of interests” to the criteria that would guide the drawing of legislative lines.
Like SJR 284, SB 840 severely restricts the use of political data or election results. SB
840 is on the docket for Tuesday’s (Jan. 27) meeting of the Senate Privileges & Elections
Committee.
SB 1000 (Lewis) establishes an advisory redistricting commission that would
work with the state Division of Legislative Services to develop redistricting plans based
on specified criteria. This is the weakest of the measures, however, as the General
Assembly would be able to reject the plans. This measure was on the Senate floor for
final passage on Monday.
11
Please urge your delegate to push for adoption of SJR 284 and SB 840.
Talking points:
 Redistricting should be done objectively with boundaries drawn on the basis of
legal, demographic and commonsense criteria that ignore the political interests of
incumbents or political parties.

The current redistricting process encourages legislators to focus on the far left or
far right voters in their district-the ones who tend to vote in primaries-instead of
the interests of the broader range of voters who participate in the general election.

Voters should choose their legislators instead of legislators choosing their voters.
Staff contact: Mary Jo Fields, [email protected]; Mark Flynn, [email protected].
Rules may change on variances – again
In 2009, the rules for obtaining a variance were softened, to make it somewhat
easier for a board of zoning appeals to grant a variance. This session, HB 1849
(Marshall, D.) weakens the standards further. VML continues negotiating with the
Virginia Association of Realtors, which is seeking the bill, to not inappropriately weaken
the standards. If it is too easy to obtain a variance, neighbors who are affected by the
action can be harmed. The bill may be heard in a subcommittee of the House Counties,
Cities & Towns Wednesday at 4 p.m., although it has not been placed on the docket yet.
Staff contact: Mark Flynn, [email protected]
Bill alters planning commission role
HB 2262 (Morris) would require planning commissions to notify rezoning
applicants “of the feasibility of the applicant’s plan for rezoning.” That standard is nearly
impossible to meet, because the rezoning process is a legislative decision made by the
governing body. Further, the bill makes the advice the planning commission official
sends an applicant a “preliminary approval of the plan.” VML opposes the bill.
Staff contact: Mark Flynn, [email protected].
Proffer payment change may become permanent
A few years ago, in the middle of the recession, VML agreed with a change to
have cash proffers paid at the time the certificate of occupancy is obtained, instead of the
earlier time of issuance of a building permit. The law has a sunset clause of 2017.
SB 726 (Cosgrove) and SB 1065 eliminate the sunset clause. VML does not
oppose SB 726, but has concerns about the much wider scope of SB 1065. We expect the
idea of delaying the payments will be extremely popular with the General Assembly. A
locality receives a very low interest income in the six months or so between obtaining a
building permit and certificate of occupancy. The builder has to pay an interest rate that
is some 3 to 4 percent higher.
Staff contact: Mark Flynn, [email protected] v
12
Bills would drastically change assessment rules
Two House bills – HB 1416 (Taylor) and HB 1576 (Pogge) – would eliminate the
presumption of correctness currently afforded an assessor’s valuation in real property tax
appeals brought in circuit court, and would remove the taxpayer’s burden to rebut this
presumption. Pogge’s bill would also permit a taxpayer to submit the valuation of an
owner-occupied building to binding arbitration instead of filing an appeal to the local
circuit court.
According to the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service at the University of
Virginia, there were only 85 property assessment appeals made in 2013 that reached
circuit court with just 16 granted judicial relief. Appeals made to the various Boards of
Equalization across the state numbered just under 7,000 with fewer than 3,100 being
successful. The most appeals granted were at the administrative level with 27,342 filed
and 15,977 granted. According to the 2013 Tax Rates survey conducted by the Weldon
Cooper Center, cities and counties reported well over 2.2 million residential taxable
parcels.
The two measures would overturn a comprehensive reform of the appeals process
made in the 2011 legislative session. VML, VACo, the Commissioners of the Revenue
Association of Virginia, the Virginia Association of Assessing Officers and the Virginia
Association of Realtors all participated in developing the legislation. In addition, HB
1576 adds a new level of bureaucracy to the appeals process and may be another
unfunded mandate foisted on localities. It also is unclear if the process and procedures
set out in state statutes for contractual disputes will be suited for assessment appeals
absence a valid contract between the parties or a voluntary agreement of both parties to
participate.
Both bills will be considered this week. HB 1416 is before the Civil Law
Subcommittee of the House Courts of Justice Committee. HB 1576 will come before a
House Finance Subcommittee on Wednesday.
Talking points:
 The bills overturn the presumption of correctness local officials have traditionally
been afforded. It is the same presumption that the Virginia tax commissioner
enjoys when a taxpayer appeals his decision to circuit court.
 Without the taxpayer assuming the burden of proof, the bills have the potential of
flooding the circuit courts by making judicial appeals easier. An unknown
number of localities would have to beef up their legal resources to accommodate
the workload.
 HB 1576 – It is unclear if the arbitrator’s decision can be appealed. If it can, the
workload of circuit courts will increase, and the costs of establishing a new
bureaucratic appeals process will not be justified. v
Staff contact: Neal Menkes, [email protected].
Bill would upset grievance procedures for many
HB 1744 (Hugo) upsets grievance rules for many localities. For years, localities
have had the right to use a hearing officer for the final step of a grievance, instead of the
13
traditional three-member panel. Panels can be difficult to seat, and require much more
effort for both the grievant and locality. The hearing officers are selected by the
executive secretary of the Virginia Supreme Court.
This bill allows the grievant to demand a panel, even if the locality never uses
panels. Further, existing law has always allowed the CEO of the locality or his or her
designee to decide questions of whether relief given in a grievance is consistent with the
personnel regulations of the locality. The bill puts the decision in the hands of the
commonwealth’s attorney – an attorney who doesn’t necessarily know the personnel
rules or the grievance process. It also upsets school grievance procedures in the same
manner.
Staff contact: Mark Flynn, [email protected] v
Rules governing procurement of professional services
under assault
A House bill would prohibit public bodies from discussing non-binding estimates
of cost when procuring professional services until one firm is picked with which to
negotiate.
HB 1540 (Albo) is a huge change from the way architectural and engineering
services have been procured for the 30-year life of the Virginia Public Procurement
Act. Under the current process, public bodies cannot ask for prices in proposals, so the
public body decides which firms to interview strictly on qualifications, without any
knowledge of price. But at the discussion (interview) stage, the public body can ask the
firms their “nonbinding” estimates of project cost. Based on the qualifications and the
estimates of price, the public body then ranks the firms in order. After the firms are
ranked, the public body can only negotiate with the firm ranked first. If the two parties
cannot reach agreement, the public body has to go to the firm ranked second and cannot
talk again to the firm ranked first, and so on until a contract is negotiated.
HB 1540 was requested by lobbyists representing architects and engineers. VML
believes that government agencies should be able to evaluate the price of work to be done
for the government at a stage where it is meaningful. A House General Laws
subcommittee will have taken up the bill Tuesday afternoon. Please talk with your
delegate on the House General Laws Committee to oppose the professional services
procurement provisions of the bill.
Staff contact: Mark Flynn, [email protected]
Community development authority repair needed
Earlier this month, the Virginia Supreme Court issued an opinion that guts the
ability of a locality to sell property for delinquent community development authority
special assessments.
The entire system of CDAs was built on an understanding of when land could be
sold. The court had a different interpretation. It puts existing CDAs in jeopardy and
stops new ones dead in their tracks. VML has worked with bond counsel and others to
develop a legislative fix. The bill is SB 1448 (Vogel) and has been assigned to the Senate
Local Government Committee. Please ask your senator and delegates to support the bill.
14
Staff contact: Mark Flynn, [email protected] v
Other bills we are following …
Firearms regulation
HB 1390 (Berg) would prohibit localities from regulating firearms or
ammunition. The bill has been referred to House Militia, Police and Public Safety
committee.
Staff contact: Kimberly Pollard, [email protected]
Guns in libraries
HB 2024 (BaCote) allows a locality to adopt an ordinance that prohibits firearms
in libraries owned or operated by the locality. The bill is in subcommittee #1 of House
Militia, Police and Public Safety.
Staff contact: Kimberly Pollard, [email protected]
Photo red prohibition
HB 2163 (Cline) would repeal photo red technology in all localities that use it and
would not allow it to be used in the future.
Staff contact: Kimberly Pollard, [email protected]
Studies on the horizon …
Tax structure
HJ 505 (Cole) establishes a joint subcommittee to study reforming Virginia's tax
structure, including the feasibility of adopting a flat tax or a fair tax. The subcommittee
shall review Virginia's entire state and local tax structure, examine ways to eliminate tax
preferences and lower tax rates, eliminate or restructure unfair or unnecessarily
burdensome taxes, and examine the feasibility of adopting a flat individual income tax.
The resolution is in the House Rules Committee.
Staff contact: Kimberly Pollard, [email protected]
Model charters
HJ 583 (Surovell) establishes a 10-member joint subcommittee to develop a
model charter, or series of charters, to serve as a guide for local governments considering
charter amendments and as a guide for member of the general assembly in evaluating
charter bills.
The resolution is in the House Rules Committee.
Staff contact: Kimberly Pollard, [email protected]
Car tax reimbursement
HJ 590 (Ramadan) requests the Department of Taxation to conduct a study of
reimbursement payments to localities under the car tax reimbursement program. The
study directs the department to look at how per capita tangible personal property tax
relief has changed between tax year 2006 and tax year 2014, and to identify the reasons
15
for the changes, including population trends. Further, the study directs the department to
recommend a new formula for distributing the car tax payments that would incorporate
changes in population and changing economic conditions. The result would be to change
the distribution of a set amount of funds, which will make for winners and losers.
The resolution is in the House Rules Committee.
Staff contact: Kimberly Pollard, [email protected]
16